Posted
by
BeauHDon Tuesday May 10, 2016 @06:55PM
from the make-the-most-of-what-you-have dept.

Master Moose quotes a report from NZ Herald: Deep within a dense Central American forest sit the ruins of an ancient city the world forgot. And it has just been discovered by a precocious 15-year-old boy. Quebec teenager William Gadoury claims he has discovered a long-lost ancient Mayan city using a clever combination of old-world astronomy and ultra-modern technology. [The inquisitive youngster, who has a deep fascination with ancient Maya, analyzed 22 Mayan constellations and realized that the Mayans aligned their 117 cities with the positions of the stars. Using satellite images from the Canadian Space Agency and Google Earth maps, William zeroed in on the precise location -- and a pyramid and about thirty ancient buildings were spotted, partially hidden, in the dense forest.] UPDATE: As the story continues to spread, so does the skepticism. David Stuart, anthropologist from The Mesoamerica Center-University of Texas at Austin, said via his Facebook page: "This current news story of an ancient Maya city being discovered is false..." Thomas Garrison, an anthropologist at USC Dornsife, told Gizmodo that the objects are relic corn fields.

It is a bit late for that. When first proposed, it would be a hypothesis, but there has already been at least one, if not more, steps of comparing the idea to evidence (e.g. checking satellite pictures and finding something). Now figuring out if the theory is well supported or baseless, and/or if there were bias issues in the search for evidence, is a bit more of subtle issue than simply swapping terminology around.

It is my understanding that a "theory" is an explanation of observed behavior. A good theory will predict certain behavior that can be tested - i.e., a "falsifiable" hypothesis. If an experiment is carried out to test the hypothesis, it may result in a positive result that supports the hypothesis, and thus the theory. (Note - A single positive outcomes doesn't mean the hypothesis is proven - the experiment needs to be repeatable and each repetition needs to yield the same positive results. Also note t

And when he presented this theory and support, it had legitimate flaws that the science community rationally had concerns about. For some reason, that part of the narrative always seems to get dropped.

I found that interesting, and read through more of his work. He was only wrong in polflucht, as the mechanism wasn't strong enough. However, he was right on almost every other aspect, and the science community railed against their boat being rocked by the truth. This happened to Einstein and every other scientist that makes a truly groundbreaking discovery that upends a lot of lifework, as only a few can write off their life's work as a mistake and move on.

Your perspective is way out of what to the point you seem to be presenting a comic book version of not based on reality. Wegener was in a long line of people proposing the idea of continental drift, but distinctively combined together several fossil and geological lines of evidence. He was the one that shifted the idea from, "Yeah, your crazy idea amounts to an interesting coincidence of continent shape" to a discussion of what unknown process could allow for it to work (a discussion that produced many no

Yeah, Galileo is another one that people always get wrong. The pope was genuinely interested in Galileo's theories and entreated him to do a proper writeup that explains what his theory has over the earth-centric model, and what his proof was. Galileo then took this permission and used it to be an ass. That was what really got him in trouble. He had the character simplicio, the straw-man idiot speaking with the pope's words; effectively saying "lol pope didn't believe me the first time I presented my theory

The news I heard was that he came up with a hypothesis, did a bit of work on his own and then asked for help to see if there were indications of a city at certain locations. There are some indications but they need to be researched further. He can't go exploring until summer break since he is 15 and has high school exams. With what is all too typical news reporting hyperbole, it is being blown way out of proportion. I don't even know if he can afford to go on that type of trip.

The true original story is from the Journal de Montréal [journaldemontreal.com] (translation [google.com]), which is somewhat credible, but like to go for the sensationalism over the facts. Not a tabloid, but a popular / populist paper.

The problem is that it took you 3 long sentences to write all that. Try to fit it in a 6-7 word half-sentence that's gonna make me want to press the "read more" button for the full story and a lot of ads!

in this case test is actually checking the site. and that evident fails to confirm the theory. there is no city, just a fallow cornfield abandoned 10-15 years ago.

nor is there any other correlation between other mayan cities and visible stars, then or now, that is just modern pseudo science mystic nonsense.a modern high resolution image of sky with lots of stars may fit a map of known mayan cities (or any random map of cities or parking lots/malls/anything) with stars but since there are lots of stars that is to be expected, and most stars in that image wont have corresponding cities and never will.

this is what so called modern "science' has become to sell tv shows and books.

and mass society at large takes it for real science and are ever ready to believe stories that fit fairy story patterns( this story fits right in; young boy, ancient legends and mysteries, confounded authority etc etc).

media is happy to oblige . (how many media outlets that ran this story today, will run a story that pointed out that "city" was a cornfield tomorrow? very few. and fewer people will choose to read it if it ran).

"science" now has become a popular mass belief with believers thinking it is the undeniable unchallengeable TRUTH (a concept that is alien to philosophy of science), with computer models and artists images taken for real instead of experiments and real world data, and consensus and voting has become proof of theories while scientific method is ignored

You're right, they probably used the Chinese set... Whether or not the kid's theory holds, it's disgusting to see how people are most interested not in cultivating, fueling and encouraging this kid's passion, but rather in eviscerating him and his best efforts. Your toddler draws a picture of which she's very proud. It represents her best efforts and she's looking to you for praise and encouragement. Instead, you tell her it's rubbish, lecture her on her terrible technique, her poor choice of color pall

You're right, they probably used the Chinese set... Whether or not the kid's theory holds, it's disgusting to see how people are most interested not in cultivating, fueling and encouraging this kid's passion, but rather in eviscerating him and his best efforts. Your toddler draws a picture of which she's very proud. It represents her best efforts and she's looking to you for praise and encouragement. Instead, you tell her it's rubbish, lecture her on her terrible technique, her poor choice of color pallet, etc..

That's not the correct analogy or the right response. This kid has (bravely) taken his ideas out into the real adult world to have them scrutinised. He's not playing and he's not a toddler. If his ideas are found wanting, the correct thing is not to pretend they are right but to explain why they are wrong. He'll learn.

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about awarding the precious snowflake an "A" for effort even though his peers run circles around them. I'm talking about sh*tting on an aspiring novice for trying to grasp beyond their station rather than guiding/mentoring/encouraging them. What kid his age do you know spends more than a few weeks on an academic endeavor--especially one not assigned to them--let alone a few years? His peers are kids his age, not a highly credentialed archaeologists. He didn't go tr

Yes, what the hell does 'correlated with constellations' mean? Just another example of taking random data sets and finding some sort of 'correlation' and then assuming causation.

Further, the constellations [wikipedia.org] that we westerners talk about were developed by Greek / Roman / Arabic folk lore. The Chinese had their own set.

I rather doubt the Mayans studied classical Greek civilization.

Poor kid, he looks totally dorked in a suit.

Thank you for your insights into Mayan civilization, especially with regards to constellations. The Mayans would obviously not have developed their own system of grouping stars into constellations nor would they have left any records documenting that. The Madrid Codex, which this poor misguided youth used as the basis of his research, is obviously a hoax from the preconquest period. The book he is holding in his hands while he is "dorked in a suit", "Les Troix Codex Mayas" Eric Taladoire, ISBN-13: 978-23

You seem to think "science" has money to verify every single formation found from Google. You also seem to THINK the boy has found enough reasons justify such verification. But what if the boy is not alone? What if there is other unfinished (more important) research not done because not enough resources (money)? What makes you to THINK we have to investigate this boy's THINKING next?

The "evident" is some professor who THINKS that is a fallow cornfield. Just as the kid THINKS there is a city there.

The person who thinks it is a cornfield is someone who actually has experience working in the Mayan lowlands, who has seen fields like that in both satellite pictures and on the ground. The person who thinks it is a city is a kid in Canada.

Yes, someone needs to visit the area to confirm anything. But I'm not going to be paying those expedition costs. If the kid wants to foot the bill himself, fine, after all if he's claiming there's a city there then the burden of proof is on him.

1. An expert actually visiting the rumored site?2. Higher resolution pictures of the site from the ground or an airplane? Preferably in a wavelength that screens out the foliage?2. A published (or even submitted) paper to a peer-reviewed journal?

I applaud the kid for his efforts, but you have to close the loop scientifically before declaring victory... even if you are 15.

Also, right now, there is nothing stopping some asshole with more resources f

Cities grow based on trade routes, natural resources, areas of strategic importance, defensible land, population growth and so on. While there might be the odd city arbitrarily placed for an administrative or religious purpose, most aren't.

I can just imagine the Mayan authorities talking with a group of peasants:

Authorities: Hey! You! Why are have you been building this town here?Peasants: Our population grew, we needed to. Many people were working too far away from the old town.Authorities: No no no, this is all wrong. There's no major stars in our constellation at this location.Peasants: But our fields are here. It's good soil, there's water...Authorities: Look, there's a bright star that maps to a position eight kilometers to the east

There's nothing wrong with wild-ass flights of speculation as long as you don't insist the facts fit. And while everyone should learn the time-tested, scholarly consensus, the fun in science comes in where things everyone has good reason to believe don't quite fit the facts. DNA is used to assemble RNA, which in turn is used to generate proteins; it's so simple and compelling, it's been called the "fundamental dogma of molecular biology"; but once you have t

Announcing to the world you've found a city when you haven't certainly qualifies as "insisting the facts fit".

What did the stars look like during Mayan times? What evidence do we have that they worshiped, venerated or otherwise cared about a certain constellation? How do known cities even align onto this constellation - accurately, or with wild ass fudging? How many cities did they have before they started on this plan or were they living in small settlements? Do the existing cities become the anchor poin

Today, many real scientists are saying that's not a lost city, it's a milapa, i.e. an abandoned corn field from 10-15 years ago. Of course, we can't know for sure until somebody actually goes there and investigates on the ground. I admire this kid, but his conjecture is probably incorrect.